[Python-Dev] pysqlite for 2.5?

[Gregory P. Smith]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> Con:
> > * Competing Python wrappers exist
> > * SQLite itself is updated frequently, let alone the wrappers
> > * Build integration risks unknown, possible delay of 2.5?
> > * Another external library to track and maybe have emergency updates of
> 
> All of these con arguments go for bsddb, too, and without sounding too
> negative about bsddb, I believe SQLite is a *much* better solution than
> BerkeleyDB, for roughly the same problem space. The same goes for pysqlite
> vs. bsddb. IMNSHO, SQLite and pysqlite are much easier to use correctly than
> BerkelyDB and bsddb, for simple and complex tasks. I may be biased against
> bsddb because I spent too much time hunting refleaks in it, but I'm not
> biased in favour of SQLite -- I'm a PostgreSQL user myself. ;-P

Agreed.  sqlite is a joy to use.  Its simple.  It provides table
structure that anyone can understand.  BerkeleyDB is very powerful but
requires a much more serious time investment to use usefully than
sqlite for anything other than simple dictionary-like data storage.

I wanted sqlite to exist for years.  The intentionally undocumented
bsddb.db.dbtables module i hacked together in early 2000 would never
have been written had sqlite existed at the time.  other things
available at the time (gadfly anyone?) just didn't seem right.

> probably a good thing. I would probably choose sqlite instead of
> shelve/anydbm/bsddb if it were part of the standard library, even though
> it's probably installed on all my machines anyway. I guess it's a psych
> thing.
> 
> As for people asking about deadlocks, well, I much rather explain about
> sqlite deadlocks than about BerkelyDB transactions.

yep.